What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

That Dominion trial is coming a lot sooner that Id thought, jury selection is on April 14th then the trial begins on April 17th and is expected to last six weeks. Also Dominion got 6,500 pages of internal Fox emails during the discovery process. In them Rupert Murdoch states that the election fraud line carried by Trump is "really crazy stuff". Then the day after the Jan 6th insurrection the penny finally drops for Murdoch and he realises his network riled up the Trump base so much with the stolen election stuff that he emailed "Is it unarguable that high-profile Fox voices fed the story that the election was stolen and that January 6th an important chance to have the result overturned’? Maybe Sean and Laura went too far. All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump, but what did he tell his viewers?” and he later pondered with an executive if Hannity and Ingraham had "gone too far". Its like Rupert woke up on January 7th to see the Capitol building absolutely wrecked and only then he thought to himself 'oh bollox, what have we done'.

I think given these emails we will be seeing Rupert as a witness as he was fully involved behind the scenes in the direct aftermath of the 2020 election, even discussing when to call Pennsylvania for Biden. On Trumps outburst at Fox calling Arizona for Biden Murdoch said in an email "Fcuk him" even though Fox went on to sack the election analyst responsible for the Arizona call. After the Arizona call Fox executives were getting so much heat from MAGAs that they were panicking one said it was an existential threat to the Fox brand and if they didnt appease their audience quickly the company would suffer greatly. It was at that point they latched on to the Dominion story put out by Guiliani & Powell in an effort to rescue Trump supporters from switching off.

It should be a very interesting trial. With 6,500 pages of internal Fox emails about to get unredacted we are going to see the internal workings of the Fox news network for the first time ever and the lengths they were willing to go to push Trumps base into idea of a stolen election which eventually led to them ransacking the Capitol.

You don't seem to actually be reading what I'm writing. I stated that the idea of proving one's innocence via trial is explicitly NOT meant as legal terminology, but is specifically referring to public opinion. And in response you go on about how "innocent" isn't a verdict given in court. I never claimed that it was. I was never talking about verdicts at all. As I stated before presumption of innocence is a legal concept. The idea of proving you are innocent via a trial is about public perception. It isn't a legal argument.

Pelosi didn't frame any criminal action in terms of a need to prove innocence. She pointed out that if he is innocent a trial will prove that to the public so there shouldn't be any need for his to try and get his followers to riot. I get that you aren't familiar with that particular turn of phrase and so you don't like it. But it is VERY common in the US, despite what the Trump followers are pretending at the moment. It is just a shorter way of saying "Going to trial and being found not guilty will prove to the public at large that you are innocent of the charges that were leveled against you". And with Twitter character count is important.

What point do you think I'm making?

what did trump (allegedly) do?

i know he was indicted for paying hush money to stormy daniels.

are they saying he raped her, shagged her, something else?

Pelosi's 2nd sentence in the tweet, that phrase you have said is very common, fair enough.

That is the sentence that Trumper's are latching on to. It implies that Trump must prove his innocence. That without exculpation, that the charges listed in the indictment are all fait accompli.

They aren't, Pelosi's words are being twisted to present the NY indictment as being a furtherance of a political hit job on Trump and that the verdict is already in.

Now I do note that you say that particular phrase is common parlance in US but not here. It's astonishing how rare it is online in the form Pelosi used. A form that places the burden of proof upon the accused, versus the far more common formula of,

@banie01

The fire will burn either way, independently of Pelosi's comments. The only difference is that Pelosi may want to beef up her security detail for at least the next 18 months.

Something else - they both admit to consensual sex while Melania was home with baby Barron in 2006. TFG picked her up at a golf tournament, shagged her, promised her a gig on Celebrity apprentice. The latter never happened. Fast forwarding a bit, Daniels tried to sell her story twice, first in 2011 to "InTouch" which, when it reached out to Trump was threatened by Trump attorney Michael Cohen. Again in 2016 when TFG's the nominee, to National Enquirer. Around the same time, other squeeze Karen McDougal is selling her "I had an affair with TFG and all I got was crabs" or some such story to the Enquirer, who paid her off but never published her story. When the Pussygate tape breaks, Daniels pops up again at the Enquirer, gets a deal but doesn't get paid until sometime later, when Michael Cohen directly paid her off while waiting on money from TFG. This eventually leads to jail time for Cohen, who got his money, somehow, from the Trump campaign

TFG is accused of using campaign funds to pay off Cohen and lying left and right about it.

For a pro-Trump timeline, see below. There's lots of them out there:

The thing is the two quotes you mention don't have anything to do with each other. They aren't different versions of the same thing. The idea that someone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct that talks about how how the justice system should work. On the other hand the idea that everyone should have the right of going to trial when they have been accused of a crime so that their innocence can be proven in court is about public perception of someone who has been publicly accused of a crime.

Yes, someone should always be assumed to be innocent until it has been proven that they are guilty. However public perception generally doesn't work that way. And pretending that it does just because that is how the justice system is designed in naive. Another way it is phrased is that everyone deserves their day in court. Which means exactly the same thing.

And no, her tweet doesn't imply that the charges are all fait accompli. Quite the opposite. If he isn't innocent then a trial is unlikely to prove that he is. She is well aware that a lot of people assume that he is guilty. I certainly do. So she offered up that the trial would be his opportunity to prove us wrong. And more importantly hoped that he wouldn't incite his followers to riot again. You know, since the last time he did that she had armed men running around inside her place of work screaming about how they wanted to find and kill her.

I saw the tweet before I ever saw any of the far right types trying to twist its meaning. I thought she was being exceptionally polite to a man that has never been anything but vile to her. It wouldn't ever have occurred to me that telling someone that everyone has the right to a trial to prove their innocence could ever be misinterpreted as saying that he was presumed guilty and would have to prove otherwise in court. To me that would be like hearing someone say "Have a nice trip" to someone going on holiday, and that being interpreted as them hoping that the person will trip over something and injure themselves. It just doesn't make any sense.

It makes much more sense to accept that she was just saying that if he is innocent the trial will prove it to everyone. Rather than assuming that somehow she doesn't understand how the burden of proof works in the justice system of the US. She's been a member of the House of Representatives since 1987. She isn't a lawyer, but she has been around the law for a very long time.

The burden of proof is never upon the accused in a court. But at the end of a case if the accused is found innocent, they will still have proven their innocence. All of this is just another Trumpcult storm in a teacup over absolutely nothing. Funny how they're so concerned over phraseology and terminology all of a sudden.

Indictments will be out on Tuesday. I'd wait a day or two for the legal eagles out there to pore over them and get some perspective. This stuff's headache-generating to follow.

I think a better take might be, "Used campaign funds to pay off Cohen, then lied about it." It's the coverup that always gets 'em, cf. Nixon, Richard M.

Just read up a bit on this, thanks. Seems like one of the actors in the scheme was "one-time Texas Governor John Connally." Now, if I were a CT type, I'd point out that's the same guy who was in the car with JFK when JFK was shot. Connally was shot, too... The guy is certainly there for big sneaky political events...

i reckon you're right. shut down opposing viewpoints. groupthink is prob the best way forward.

The admission might be new but I always thought it was common knowledge that a deal was done.

I literally said that in my post, twice.

But thanks for the confirmation 😉👍

Neither Pelosi nor anyone else is saying that the accused "needs" to prove their innocence. However, the fact still remains that once a trial has ended and the plaintiff has failed to make the charges stick, as it were, then the accused has proven their innocence in the case, which is all that Pelosi has said. They will have been "vindicated", as you say, which literally means "proof that someone or something is right", according to the OED.

As for evidence being offered, all parties being evidence to a trial. It would be foolish in the extreme for one's council to bring zero evidence to defend their client in the hope that they could merely count on breaking the court's case that's levelled against them without it. You can bet your bottom dollar that Trump's lawyers have been furiously building a defence in order to "prove" their client's innocence.

There's nothing wrong with what Pelosi has said or in the way that she phrased things. What is wrong, however, is that certain quarters want to make people think she means something that she didn't actually say.